Advertisement

Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 70, Issue 3, pp 299–313 | Cite as

From global problems to international norms: what does the social construction of a global corruption problem tell us about the emergence of an international anti-corruption norm

  • Elitza Katzarova
Article

Abstract

This article examines the ontological contestation that is inherent to the emergence of an international anti-corruption norm. First, the article briefly analyses the compatibility of an agenda on the social construction of problems from sociology and the well-established study of norms in constructivist IR. It argues that an analytical shift from the study of norms to the social construction of problems can shed light on the power relations that underlie international norms, and corruption in particular. The article traces the emergence of a global corruption problem up to the early 2000s when scholars have traditionally placed the establishment of an international anti-corruption norm. It first shows the contestation of corruption as a global issue on the level of problem definition, and then, it shows the role of venue shopping and venue shifting in the diffusion of anti-corruption talks and the norm cascade of the 1990s. The article concludes with an analysis of how the social construction of problems challenges the conventional approach of the emergence of an international anti-corruption norm.

References

  1. 1.
    Abbott, K. W., & Snidal, D. (2002). Values and interests: International legalization in the fight against corruption. The Journal of Legal Studies, 31(1), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gutterman, E., & Lohaus, M. (2017). What is the “Anti-Corruption” Norm in Global Politics? Norm Robustness and Contestion in the Transnsational Governance of Corruption. In I. Kubbe & A. Engelbert (Eds.), Corruption and Norms. Why Informal Rules Matter. London: Palgrave Macmillan (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosenau, J., & Wang, H. (2001). Transparency International and corruption as an issue of global governance. Global Governance, 7(1), 25–49.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    GAC (2007). World Bank country-level engagement on governance and anticorruption. http://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/evaluations/world-bank-country-level-engagement-governance-and-anticorruption. Accessed 17 Mar 2017.
  5. 5.
    IMF (2017). Good governance: the IMF’s role. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/exrp/govern/govindex.htm. Accessed 19 Mar 2017.
  6. 6.
    Naim, M. (1995). Corruption eruption. Brown Journal of World Affairs, 2(2), 245–261.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tanzi, V. (1998). Corruption around the world: Causes, consequences, scope, and cures. IMF Staff Papers, 45(1), 559–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McCoy, J. L., & Heckel, H. (2001). The emergence of a global anti-corruption norm. International Politics, 38(1), 65–90.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wolff, J., & Zimmermann, L. (2016). Between banyans and battle scenes: Liberal norms, contestation, and the limits of critique. Review of International Studies, 42(3), 513–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wiener, A. (2014). A theory of contestation. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Niemann, H., & Schillinger, H. (2016). Contestation ‘all the way down’? The grammar of contestation in norm research. Review of International Studies, 43(1), 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. (2009). Constructing social problems. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krook, M. L., & True, J. (2012). Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: The United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality. European Journal of International Relations, 18(1), 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blumer, H. (1971). Social problems as collective behavior. Social Problems, 18(3), 298–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Girling, J. (1997). Corruption, capitalism and democracy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaufmann, D., & Vicente, P. C. (2011). Legal corruption. Economics & Politics, 23(2), 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    von Alemann, U. (2004). The unknown depths of political theory: The case for multidimensional concept of corruption. Crime, Law and Social Change, 42(1), 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rose-Ackerman, S. (1978). Corruption: A study in political economy. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnston, M. (1996). The search for definitions: The vitality of politics and the issue of corruption. International Social Science Journal, 48(149), 321–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Teachout, Z. (2014). Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin’s snuff box to citizens united. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Senturia, J. (1931). Corruption, political. In Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 4 (pp. 448–452). New York: The Macmillan Company (Macmillan).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    UNCTAD (1973). Address delivered by Mr. Salvador Allende Gossens, President of Chile at the inaugural ceremony on 13 April 1972. Proceedings of UNCTAD Third Session. Vol. 1 Annex VIII.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    U.N. General Assembly. (1975a). Chapter XIII: Questions concerning transnational corporations. In Yearbook of the United Nations, 1975, vol. 29 (pp. 484–490). New York: UN.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    U.S. Congress. House. Committee on International Economic Policy. (1975). The activities of American multinational corporations abroad: Hearing before the subcommittee on international economic policy of the committee on international relations. 94th Cong., 1st sess., June 5.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Garavini, G. (2013). After empires. European integration, decolonisation and the challenge from the global south 1957–1986. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hamdani, K., & Ruffing, L. (2015). United Nations Centre on transnational corporations: Corporate conduct and the public interest. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    U.N. General Assembly. (1975b). 30th Session. “Resolution 3514: Measures Against Corrupt Practices of Transnational and Other Corporations, Their Intermediaries and Others Involved.” December 15, 1975, pp. 69–70 in Resolutions Adopted on the Reports of the Second Committee (A/RES/3514). New York: UN.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    IME(75)18. (1975). Draft guidelines on political involvement of multinational enterprises, note by the United States delegation, September 17. OECD Archives, Paris Headquarters.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Broehl, W. G. (1996). The persisting case against the multinational corporation. Business and Economic History, 25, 159–165.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Puckett, B. (2010). Clans and the foreign corrupt practices act: Individualized corruption prosecution in situations of systemic corruption. Georgetown Journal of International Law, 41(4), 815.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (1988). Pub. L. no. 100-418, 3001-3604, 103 stat. 1372 (codified as amended in scattered sections of U.S.C. (1988)).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Prashad, V. (2013). The poorer nations: A possible history of the global south. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Abdelal, R. (2006). Writing the rules of global finance: France, Europe, and capital liberalization. Review of International Political Economy, 13(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    C(94)75/FINAL. (1994). Recommendation of the Council on Bribery in International Business Transactions, adopted by the Council at its 829th session, July 11. OECD Archives, Paris Headquarters.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Council of Europe. (1999). Civil law convention on corruption: And explanatory report. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Pub.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    CM(94)117. (1995). Conference of European ministers of justice. Administrative, civil, and penal aspects, including the role of the judiciary, of the fight against corruption: Proceedings, 19th conference of European ministers of justice, Valletta, Malta, June 14–15, 1994. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Pub.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Common Position 97/661/JHA. (1997). Common position drawn up on the basis of article K.3 of the treaty on European Union on negotiations in the Council of Europe and the OECD relating to corruption: October 6. Official Journal L, 279, 1–2.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Szarek-Mason, P. (2010). The European Union’s fight against corruption: The evolving policy towards member states and candidate countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pieth, M. (2007). Introduction. In M. Pieth, L. Low, & N. Bonucci (Eds.), The OECD convention on bribery: A commentary (pp. 1–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Manfroni, C. A., & Werksman, R. S. (2003). The Inter-American Convention against Corruption: Annotated with commentary. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Elliott, K. A. (1997). Corruption as an international policy problem: Overview and recommendations. In K. A. Elliott (Ed.), Corruption and the global economy (pp. 175–233). Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    DAFFE/IME/PI(93)1. (1993). Elements of recommendation - general considerations, Ad Hoc Group on Illicit Payments, notes by the Netherlands delegation, August 23. OECD Archives, Paris Headquarters.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Feinberg, R. E. (1997). Summitry in the Americas: A progress report. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vogl, F. (2012). Waging war on corruption: Inside the movement fighting the abuse of power. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    DAFFE/IME/BR/RD(95)1. (1995). Criminalisation of bribery of foreign public officials, Working group on bribery in international business transactions, October 11. OECD Archives, Paris Headquarters.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Alldridge, P. W. (2012). The U.K. bribery act: The caffeinated younger sibling of the FCPA. Ohio State Law Journal, 73(5), 1181–1216.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bean, B. W. (2012). Further to professor Alldridge’s “caffeinated” article: What “stuff” did the professor have in mind? Ohio State Law Journal Furthermore, 73, 77.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Blum, J. (2009). Testimony on the problem of curbing grand scale global corruption before the Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives. 111th Cong., 1st sess., May 19, 2009.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ashe, D. P. (2004). Lengthening anti-bribery lasso of the United States: The recent extraterritorial application of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Fordham Law Review, 73(6), 2897–2945.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Glynn, P., Kobrin, S., & Naim, M. (1997). The globalization of corruption. In K. A. Elliott (Ed.), Corruption and the global economy (pp. 7–31). Washington, DC: Peterson Institute.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    TI Press Release. (1998). G 7 Summit holds key to global anti-bribery treaty: Canada, France, Italy and UK must take first step. http://www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/g_7_summit_holds_key_to_global_anti_bribery_treaty. Accessed 19 Mar 2017.
  53. 53.
    G7 Meeting of Ministers and Central Bank Governors (1997). Communiqué from 27 Apr 1997. http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/finance/fm970427.htm. Accessed 17 Mar 2017.
  54. 54.
    The White House (2017). Summit of the eight: the sherpas. http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/New/Eight/sherpa.html. Accessed 17 Apr 2017.
  55. 55.
    Department of State. (1997). Promoting the model business principles. Department of State Publication 104846. http://library.law.columbia.edu/urlmirror/4/PromotingtheModelBusinessPrinciples.htm. Accessed 17 Apr 2017.
  56. 56.
    UN Economic and Social Council. (1996). 86th Session. Resolution 51/191. Declaration against corruption and bribery in international commercial transactions, December 16, 1996 (A/RES/51/191). New York: UN.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    UNTERM (2017). Draft International Agreement on Illicit Payments. http://unterm.un.org/dgaacs/unterm.nsf/8fa942046ff7601c85256983007ca4d8/52f9e4bc389a5e61852569fa00003a47?OpenDocument. Accessed 17 Mar 2017.
  58. 58.
    Boswell, N. Z. (1997). Emerging consensus on controlling corruption. Journal of International Law, 18(4), 44–69.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    U.N. General Assembly. (2000). 55th session (81st plenary meeting). An effective international legal instrument against corruption, December 4, 2000 (A/RES/55/61). New York: UN.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Touq, M. (2013). UNCAC is the fastest convention in history. http://www.transparency.de/UNCAC-is-the-fastest-conventio.2414.0.html. Accessed 17 Mar 2017.
  61. 61.
    UNODC (2017). Action against corruption and economic crime. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/. Accessed 17 Mar 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Social ScienceTechnical University of BraunschweigBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations